2018 (12) TMI 495 - AT - Central Excise

Rectification of mistake - a case was booked against the appellant for clearances of branded vegetable oil in the garb of unbranded vegetable oil - Held that - It is apparent that Tribunal has considered all the evidences for arriving at the conclusion and rejected the ones which were not found well supported, as evidenced from Para 6.8 of the order. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that Tribunal has not examined all the evidences. Any re-appreciation of the said evidences which has already been rejected by Tribunal now would amount to review of the order. ROM Application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification of mistake in Tribunal order regarding examination of defense aspects by the appellant.

Analysis:
The appellant filed a ROM application seeking rectification of the Tribunal order dated 15.09.2017, claiming that two aspects of their defense were not examined in detail. The appellant argued that the Tribunal failed to give findings on assertions made in Para 4(i) and 4(ii) of the order. The appellant relied on legal precedents to support their contention, emphasizing the need for rectification based on the principles of natural justice and prior court decisions.

The AR opposed the application, contending that the Tribunal had thoroughly examined all issues as evidenced by the findings in the order. The AR argued against reconsideration, citing the prohibition on reviewing its own decision. Legal references were provided to support the AR's position, emphasizing the limitations on reevaluation post-decision.

The Tribunal analyzed the case where the appellant was accused of clearing branded vegetable oil as unbranded. Various pieces of evidence were presented by the Revenue, and the appellant argued in defense, highlighting statements from buyers and production details of unbranded oil in March/April 2003. The Tribunal meticulously examined the evidence, including declarations, transport documents, and statements, ultimately concluding that the appellant's actions aimed to wrongly claim benefits not entitled to under Notification No. 6/2003. The Tribunal's detailed assessment led to the rejection of the appellant's submissions, as explicitly stated in the order.

The Tribunal's decision was based on a thorough review of all evidence, as reflected in Para 6.8 of the order, where the Tribunal categorically dismissed the appellant's claims. The Tribunal's rejection of the appellant's arguments regarding buyer statements and unbranded oil production in specific months was clearly outlined. The Tribunal's comprehensive analysis and rejection of unsubstantiated claims demonstrated a meticulous review of the case, leading to a firm conclusion.

The Tribunal dismissed the ROM application, emphasizing that reevaluation of previously rejected evidence would amount to a review of the order, citing legal precedents to support this stance. The Tribunal's decision was grounded in the principle that rectification should address patent mistakes, not involve reappreciating evidence or reconsidering legal views. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld its original order, highlighting the importance of adhering to established legal principles in decision-making.